Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:10:15 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: left over things in linux-next after 2.6.28-c1
Message-ID: <20081025221015.GA32568@kroah.com>
References: <20081026005009.50dbbb33.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081025143715.GB30900@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20081025211651.GA32027@kroah.com> <20081025215245.GA27572@uranus.ravnborg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081025215245.GA27572@uranus.ravnborg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2354
Lines: 62

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:52:45PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:16:51PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 04:37:15PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > tests
> > > > 
> > > > 	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli (7):
> > > > 	      Add tests/ directory
> > > > 	      Move locking selftests to tests/
> > > > 	      Move rcutorture to tests/
> > > > 	      Move rtmutex tester to tests/
> > > > 	      Move lkdtm to tests/
> > > > 	      Move kprobes smoke tests to tests/
> > > > 	      Move backtrace selftests to tests/
> > > 
> > > I have almost given up on this.
> > > Three merge attemps failed for different reasons,
> > > and I will not even have time for my maintainership
> > > duties the next months.
> > > 
> > > Anyone that can bring it forward?
> > 
> > What are the reasons this is failing?  Is it just moving different files
> > around into the tests/ directory?  Or is it new functionality here?
> > 
> > If just moving stuff, is that really needed?
> 
> The incentive was to have a common place to add small tests that
> could be used to verify that the kernel works as expected.
> From inkernel modules (like rcutorture) to small userspace
> utilities such as something massaging the epoll interface or
> similar.
> 
> The above was just to get it started.

Ok, that's great, but the current tree is just the in-kernel tests so
far, right?

> Having a set of tests to run when introducing a new syscall
> would make it much easier for an arch maintainer to verify
> that the implemented syscall works as expected.
> 
> And forcing the developer to use the interface from user-space
> will hopefully catch a few issues earlier.

I totally agree that this is a good thing to have.

But I don't necessarily think that moving the in-kernel tests to this
directory makes that much sense here, wouldn't the in-kernel tests work
out better living next to the code they are testing, like they are right
now?   Or do you and others think that moving them would help things
out?

And are there any proposed userspace tests in this tree right now?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/